OTTAWA—Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s Senate gambit caught his senators by surprise and the Conservative government off guard.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s reaction was swift and mocking. He derided the ejection of 32 senators from the federal Liberal party’s caucus as a meaningless, trivial change.

“Unelected Liberal senators will become unelected senators who happen to be Liberal,” shrugged Harper in the Commons. Only an elected Senate is real reform, he said. Only a dead Senate is the way to go, said NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement called the Senate ouster “gimmicky.” Sen. Bob Runciman said it was “all smoke and mirrors.” MP Daryl Kramp dismissed it as a “Hail Mary move” by Trudeau to counter criticism he’s “vacuous in presenting policy positions.”

Pressed, Kramp allowed it would certainly be “possible” to eliminate senators from the Conservative caucus as well. But not practical in his view.

“In reality, in the political world you’re either part of a team or you’re not,” said Kramp. “Politics is a team sport. Doesn’t mean you have to move in lockstep.”

And yet, something may have changed in Ottawa Wednesday that has the potential to resonate well beyond the Parliament Hill bubble.

Not everyone on the Conservative government side, inside and outside Ottawa, is as certain as Harper that Trudeau’s political play won’t strike a populist chord.

Preston Manning said it was a step in the right direction, though he sees it as a flawed plan that falls well short of his ideal of an elected Senate.

It might turn out to be a “sugar-high” but for now, Trudeau’s move has the “merit” of appearing to address a problem that Canadians want addressed — the Senate’s lack of independence — while the Conservatives’ plan to name senators through “consultative elections” in provinces and limit their tenure is suspended while the Supreme Court decides whether Ottawa can do that without provincial consent.

Another goes further. “It’s a very smart move,” said a former senior aide, “Basically takes away Harper’s ability to appoint partisans for the next two years. Shows leadership, even if (it’s) difficult to implement as PM and clearly casts himself as an agent of change vs. Harper.”

“And this was very difficult, but I think he (Trudeau)’s managed it . . . he’s neutralized away one of the founding principles of the Conservative Party of Canada (Senate reform) in one fell swoop and wrapped himself in the reform flag.”

“Libs ain’t as dumb as they used to be.”

Some columnists and editorial writers suggested Trudeau failed to consult widely, as he’s promised to do and so showed an undemocratic streak.

Conservatives used to Stephen Harper’s style of leadership grudgingly admired or at least acknowledged the ruthlessness displayed by Trudeau is a necessary ingredient for winning.

For now, Trudeau’s political rivals are taking the view that Harper doesn’t have much to worry about, that Trudeau’s theatrical gesture — which included turfing one senator appointed by his father — is merely symbolic.

Even if sustained, they figure Trudeau has not thought through the consequences for future Liberal leaders who may come to regret the loss of influence over Senate caucus members.

Beyond the immediate gesture of the caucus ouster, several Conservatives suspect Trudeau will become bogged down in what they see as an improvised plan.

Just look at what happened Wednesday: chaos in the Senate as the newly independent Liberals struggled like blobs of mercury to come back together as a cohesive whole.

With senators still calling themselves Liberals, those Conservatives figure Trudeau will be unable to show Canadians he’s made a substantive change.

And their longer view is he will be unable to explain in an election campaign how a panel of notable Canadians — which Trudeau says should vet Senate nominations for merit — would be any more democratic and not a sinecure for central or eastern Canadian “elitists.”

If the Supreme Court of Canada rules either of the Conservatives’ options outlined in the reference case — “consultative elections” or outright abolition (as the NDP wants) — require constitutional negotiations that open the Pandora’s box of provincial and regional demands, Trudeau’s option might start to look a lot more attractive to an electorate weary of Senate partisans, spenders and shills.

One senior Conservative government member said if the government loses at the Supreme Court, his preferred option would be to go to a referendum, get a strong popular vote for reform that provincial premiers could not turn their backs on.

In the meanwhile, he concedes Trudeau’s move has the benefit of looking like action, not just more talk.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.